1. Petition under Article 32 seeking a uniform education system, a standard constitutional textbook, and the merger of education boards to ensure equal opportunity under Article 21A. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 763
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, INDU MALHOTRA, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY - Petitioners
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No.599/2020
Decided On : 17-07-2020
Important Points
The Court held that matters concerning educational policy, including the constitution of a National Education Council or the merging of education boards, are policy decisions falling within the domain of experts and are not justiciable under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Education
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 15, 16, 32, 38(2), 39(f), 46, 51A, 21A – Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 – State shall not deny to any person equality before law – Guarantees equal opportunity to all citizens in matters related to employment in public sector – Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part – Strive to minimize inequalities in income – In his submission, present educational system does not provide equal opportunity to students of all strata of society – He has relied on the decision of US Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board of Education – Held, Writ Petition raises issues of policy – Court are affirmatively of view that it is not within domain of this Court under Article 32 of Constitution to direct constitution of a National Education Council or National Education Commission – These are matters which fall within domain of experts – Similarly, relief which has been of introducing a “standard textbook with a chapter on Constitution” is a matter of policy – School syllabus contains subjects bearing on knowledge of rights, duties and governance under Constitution – Court reject submission for issuing a mandamus for constituting a single Board by merging the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education Board into Central Board of Secondary Education – Petition lays no foundation or justiciable basis for Court to issue directions of this nature – Court decline to allow office of this Court to be used for directing that suggestions which have been made by petitioner be considered by authorities – This is nothing but an effort to confer legitimacy on petitioner’s attempt to enter into an area of educational policy - Writ Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, AOR
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Current educational system fails to provide equal opportunity; request for a National Education Council, standard textbooks, and a single education board based on Article 21A. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Directing the creation of education councils or standard textbooks involves policy decisions and expert domains, falling outside the court's jurisdiction under Article 32. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Matters of educational policy and the constitution of expert bodies are not justiciable under Article 32 of the Constitution. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Writ petition dismissed and pending applications disposed of. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. Can the Court under Article 32 direct the government to establish a National Education Council or Commission?
No, the Court held that directing the constitution of such bodies is a matter of policy and falls within the domain of experts, not within the Court's jurisdiction under Article 32. (Para 4 )
7. Is the introduction of a standard textbook on the Constitution a justiciable issue?
No, the Court observed that the introduction of a standard textbook is a matter of policy, noting that existing school syllabi already cover rights, duties, and governance. (Para 4 )
8. Can a mandamus be issued to merge different education boards into a single entity?
No, such a direction cannot be issued without a justiciable basis, as it pertains to the area of educational policy. (Para 5 )
ORDER :
1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, the following reliefs have been sought by the petitioner who appears in person:
“a) ascertain the feasibility of constituting a National Education Council (on the lines of GST Council) or National Education Commission (as proposed by the NCRWC) to implement uniform education system having common syllabus and common curriculum for all the children aged 6-14 years in spirit of Article 21.A read with Articles 14, 15, 16, 38(2], 39(f), 46 and 51A of the Constitution of India;
(b) ascertain the feasibility of introducing a standard textbook having chapters on fundamental rights, duties, directive principles and the golden goals set out in the Preamble, and make its study compulsory for all the children aged 6-14 years throughout the territory of India;
(c) ascertain the feasibility of establishing "One Nation One Education Board" by merging Indian Certificate of Secondary Education Board into Central Board of Secondary Education or vice-versa;
(d) take steps as the Court may deem fit to secure right to education in spirit of Articles 14, 15, 16, 21A, 38, 39, 46, 51A and allow the cost.”
2. Mr Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who has appeared in person, submits that the reliefs which have been claimed are founded on the provisions of Article 21A of the Constitution and on the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009. In his submission, the present educational system does not provide equal opportunity to students of all strata of society. He has relied on the decision of the US Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board of Education 98 L Ed 873: 347 US 483 (1953).
3. In the alternative, he has submitted that if this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition, the petition may be permitted to be treated as a representation and the Registry should be directed to forward the representation to the respondents for considering the suggestions which have been made.
4. The Writ Petition raises issues of policy. We are affirmatively of the view that it is not within the domain of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution to direct the constitution of a National Education Council or National Education Commission. These are matters which fall within the domain of experts. Similarly, the relief which has been of introducing a “standard textbook with a chapter on the Constitution” is a matter of policy. The school syllabus contains subjects bearing on the knowledge of rights, duties and governance under the Constitution.
5. We reject the submission for issuing a mandamus for constituting a single Board by merging the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education Board into Central Board of Secondary Education. The petition lays no foundation or justiciable basis for the Court to issue directions of this nature. We decline to allow the office of this Court to be used for directing that the suggestions which have been made by the petitioner be considered by the authorities. This is nothing but an effort to confer legitimacy on the petitioner’s attempt to enter into an area of educational policy.
6. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
